Outcome:CoAallows appeal in
part and holds that a gift to a spouse can only be considered a matrimonial
asset if it is substantively improved by the other spouse after the gifting.

1This
was an appeal against the High Court’s decision on the division of matrimonial
assets between the parties. Among the grounds of appeal, the appellant, who was
the Husband, argued that the 20,000 shares and the 60,000 shares he had
received from his father as gifts were not matrimonial assets. The Court of
Appeal dismissed all the grounds of his appeal, except on one ground: the court
held that the 60,000 shares that were gifted to him were not matrimonial
assets.

The material facts

2 The
parties were married in May 2003 and their marriage lasted 12.5 years. The Wife
filed for divorce in November 2015. The Husband worked in his family business,
a supermarket chain (“the Supermarket”), at the time of the proceedings in the
Family Court. He holds 8% of the shares in the Supermarket, his father owns
85%, his mother owns 5% while his sister owns the balance 2%. The Husband also
has interests in other businesses: [5].

3 The
Wife previously worked as a senior bank officer before she resigned in February
2004, shortly after their marriage. Whether she then worked for the Supermarket
and/or the Husband’s other businesses was a matter of dispute between the
parties. According to her, she worked until the birth of their third child in
November 2012. It was not disputed that she remained on the payroll of the
Supermarket until November 2015. The Husband’s case was that she did not
actually work for the Supermarket at all and the monies that she received as
salary were given by his father to her as part of the arrangement he had in
place for all his daughters-in-law, and the monies were actually part of the
Husband’s salary: [6].

4 It
was not disputed that the Husband’s father gave him 20,000 shares in the
Supermarket before the marriage in 1999 and 60,000 shares during the marriage
in November 2012: [7].

Decision on appeal

5 The Court of Appeal found no reason to
disturb the findings in the courts below that the Wife had worked in the
Supermarket and played a fairly important role in the day-to-day administrative
running of the Supermarket: [9].

6 For
the 20,000 shares that were gifted to the Husband before the marriage, the
Court of Appeal agreed with the decision in the court below that they were
matrimonial assets, because they were substantively improved by the Wife during
the marriage, through her work for the Supermarket: [10].

7 As
for the 60,000 shares that were gifted to the Husband at about the same time
when the Wife stopped working for the Supermarket, the Court of Appeal
overturned the decision of the court below and agreed with the Husband that
they were not matrimonial assets. The Court of Appeal held that substantive
improvement by the other party to the asset before
it was gifted to the recipient spouse should not be taken into account for the
purposes of s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed): [12] to [18].

This summary is provided to assist in
the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be
a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square
brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of
decision.